The Path to the Woods

ITS friendship and its carelessness
Did lead me many a mile,
Through goat’s-rue, with its dim caress,
And pink and pearl-white smile;
Through crowfoot, with its golden lure,
And promise of far things,
And sorrel with its glance demure
And wide-eyed wonderings.

It led me with its innocence,
As childhood leads the wise,
With elbows here of tattered fence,
And blue of wildflower eyes;
With whispers low of leafy speech,
And brook-sweet utterance;
With bird-like words of oak and beech,
And whisperings clear as Pan’s.

It led me with its childlike charm,
As candor leads desire,
Now with a clasp of blossomy arm,
A butterfly kiss of fire;
Now with a toss of tousled gold,
A barefoot sound of green,
A breath of musk, of mossy mold,
With vague allurements keen.

It led me with remembered things
Into an old-time vale,
Peopled with faëry glimmerings,
And flower-like fancies pale;
Where fungous forms stood, gold and gray,
Each in its mushroom gown,
And, roofed with red, glimpsed far away,
A little toadstool town.

It led me with an idle ease,
A vagabond look and air,
A sense of ragged arms and knees
In weeds grown everywhere;
It led me, as a gypsy leads,
To dingles no one knows,
With beauty burred with thorny seeds,
And tangled wild with rose.

It led me as simplicity
Leads age and its demands,
With bee-beat of its ecstasy,
And berry-stained touch of hands;
With round revealments, puff-ball white,
Through rents of weedy brown,
And petaled movements of delight
In roseleaf limb and gown.

It led me on and on and on,
Beyond the Far Away,
Into a world long dead and gone,—
The world of Yesterday:
A faëry world of memory,
Old with its hills and streams,
Wherein the child I used to be
Still wanders with his dreams.

— Madison Cawein, from Rittenhouse, Jessie B., ed. The Little Book of Modern Verse. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1917; New York: Bartleby.com, 2002

To celebrate Walt Whitman’s 189th birthday, here is a selection from the Preface to the 1855 (first) edition of Leaves of Grass, as found in The Portable Walt Whitman, selected and with notes by Mark Van Doren (Viking, 1945):

The American poets are to enclose old and new, for America is the race of races. The expression of the American poet is to be transcendent and new. It is to be indirect, and not direct or descriptive or epic. Its quality goes through these to much more. Let the age and wars of other nations be chanted, and their eras and characters be illustrated, and that finish the verse. Not so the great psalm of the republic. Here the theme is creative, and has vista. Whatever stagnates in the flat of custom or obedience or legislation, the great poet never stagnates. Obedience does not master him, he masters it. High up out of reach he stands, turning a concentrated light—he turns the pivot with his finger—he baffles the swiftest runners as he stands, and easily overtakes and envelopes them. The time straying toward infidelity and confections and persiflage he withholds by steady faith. Faith is the antiseptic of the soul—it pervades the common people is preserves them—they never give up believing and expecting and trusting. There is that indescribable freshness and unconsciousness about an illiterate person, that humbles and mocks the power of the noblest expressive genius. The poet sees for a certainty how one not a great artist may be just as sacred and perfect as the greatest artist.

My Liberal Identity:

You are a Social Justice Crusader, also known as a rights activist. You believe in equality, fairness, and preventing neo-Confederate conservative troglodytes from rolling back fifty years of civil rights gains.

Take the quiz at www.FightConservatives.com

I find this quiz result amusing in that I’ve long said mercy trumps justice. Justice has a tendency to get all mixed up with revenge.

But perhaps I don’t know myself after all. Surely an internet quiz can’t be wrong??

And I am a card-carrying member of the American Civil Liberties Union. Which, I should mention, has now established The Blog of Rights, where today the lead post is written by Nikki Anthony of Breckinridge County, Kentucky:

My name is Nikki Anthony and I just finished eighth grade at Breckinridge County Middle School in Kentucky. The ACLU is representing me, my younger sister, and five other students in a case against our school district and the U.S. Department of Education because our rights are being violated by my school segregating students by sex. I was raised in a house where rights are very important, and I was told, “if you don’t stand up for your rights then they will be taken away.” People in the United States don’t tolerate segregation by sex in everyday life, and yet they want us to tolerate it in our school system when we are supposed to be learning what being free really is.

Justice dictates that I tell you I found this quiz in the sidebar at Suburban Guerrilla. Susie is a Working Class Warrior.

The world will miss Harvey Korman. He had the capacity to be funny himself and to help every one around him be funny.

I heard the Concert in the Park version of this while driving to work this morning and somehow it seemed like a perfect way to celebrate the advent of Scott McClellan’s book:

At least W’s mother still loves him. But then, she could be jiving too.

Le Chat

Viens, mon beau chat, sur mon coeur amoureux;
Retiens les griffes de ta patte,
Et laisse-moi plonger dans tes beaux yeux,
Mêlés de métal et d’agate.

Lorsque mes doigts caressent à loisir
Ta tête et ton dos élastique,
Et que ma main s’enivre du plaisir
De palper ton corps électrique,

Je vois ma femme en esprit. Son regard,
Comme le tien, aimable bête
Profond et froid, coupe et fend comme un dard,

Et, des pieds jusques à la tête,
Un air subtil, un dangereux parfum
Nagent autour de son corps brun.

— Charles Baudelaire

__________
And the translation:

The Cat

Come, superb cat, to my amorous heart;
Hold back the talons of your paws,
Let me gaze into your beautiful eyes
Of metal and agate.

When my fingers leisurely caress you,
Your head and your elastic back,
And when my hand tingles with the pleasure
Of feeling your electric body,

In spirit I see my woman. Her gaze
Like your own, amiable beast,
Profound and cold, cuts and cleaves like a dart,

And, from her head down to her feet,
A subtle air, a dangerous perfume
Floats about her dusky body.

— William Aggeler, The Flowers of Evil (Fresno, CA: Academy Library Guild, 1954)

I do have a “selected” Fleurs du Mal that I am reading but I found this particular poem at the online edition here.

from Peter Gay. Modernism. The Lure of Heresy. From Baudelaire to Beckett and Beyond (W. W. Norton, 2008)

What made Les Fleur Du Mal a founding document of modernism was, even more than its explicitness, Baudelaire’s ability to merge formal clarity and licentious subject matter, the strictest rule-bound sonnets and the grossest metaphors. …A conventional versifier may excel in his control, a libertine in his freedom; it was Baudelaire’s gift of joining technical control to emotional scope that made him so extraordinary a model for modernist poets. …

Through the decades, Baudelaire’s admirers would say over and over that his voice was the voice of poetry pure and simple. It offered no political, ethical, or religious program; it did not try to impress its readers with rhetorical flourishes; it emerged from feelings, not ideas. For Baudelaire, form was a vessel that receives substance to mold into an appropriate shape. He found, to borrow a phrase from one of his most consistent admirers, T. S. Eliot, an “objective correlative” for whatever he wanted—or perhaps better, needed—to express. It followed … that the morality or immorality of a poem depends not on its subject matter but on its treatment. (pp 39-40)

I know a lot of you all reading here think I’m in the tank for Hillary Clinton, and it’s true that I prefer Hillary on the issues (Obama has apparently made it a policy not to have policies). But —

Oh just read Joan Walsh:

Throughout this long campaign the Clintons have been turned into a vile caricature: amoral, power-mad narcissists who are not beyond using racism and even worries about Obama’s safety to press their political cause. I’ve criticized both Clintons repeatedly in the pages of Salon for over 10 years, but it’s really time to say: Enough.

For several months I’ve found myself bothered by a double standard in both the behavior and the media coverage of the Obama campaign, as supposedly representing a new kind of clean, post-partisan politics, by contrast with the dirty old win-at-any-cost Clintons. Hardball Obama campaign tactics — David Axelrod partly blaming Clinton for Benazir Bhutto’s death; the intimidation of Clinton voters by a pro-Obama union in Nevada (to be fair, some Obama supporters claimed intimidation by Clinton forces, too); the campaign’s infamous South Carolina race memo (prepared before Bill Clinton made his dumb Jesse Jackson remark); the multiple “Harry and Louise” mailers distorting Clinton’s healthcare proposal; not to mention ties between Obama, Axelrod and the Exelon Corp., even as Obama is touting his lobbyist-free campaign. Nothing seems to stick to Obama; he’s Teflon.

This episode was worse than many but not entirely atypical: After his staff helped whip up a frenzy about Clinton’s remarks, Obama himself said he accepted Clinton’s statement that she had been misunderstood, and Axelrod tried to act gracious and insist that it’s time to move on. But the damage had been done. Obama has run a better campaign than Clinton, there’s no doubt about it, but he’s had a lot of help from a fawning media. (Here’s a great piece making a point I made months ago about how such coverage may ultimately hurt Obama.)*

*Hint: backlash.

And then read Redstar. I’m not sure that I agree with everything she says here, but I have come to respect her intellectual integrity and she makes me think we might all need to step back and take a deep breath (emphasis added):

Part of the reason for last night’s insomnia has been my growing frustration from the Clinton RFK remarks skirmish. It began in earnest when I read Kevin’s response at Slant Truth, in which he stated that regardless of her intent, it was his personal associations of the assassinations of black leaders that mattered to him. He added that he was further troubled by the racially segregated - and polarized - link networks he was seeing in response to her comments; i.e., whites were linking to other whites in support of their perspectives, and bloggers of color - including many African-Americans - were linking to one another in opinion solidarity. When I read this, I thought Duh! Obviously. Anyone following this election, especially since early ‘08, has seen this cultural fracturing around the blogosphere, as we all interpret the candidates’ actions, statements and alleged motivations and intent based on our personal and/or collective experiences and identities.

Then I read a compelling analysis from Latoya at Racialicious, which I found to be strongly undermined by her strident vocabulary that “hell no…there is no way Hillary was talking about herself when referencing the RFK campaign.” Latoya’s voice is one I really respect in the ’sphere, yet so is Pocochina’s, who just as convincingly argues that of course Clinton is thinking of herself in referencing RFK, because it’s a) a defining (generational) moment for her in her political development, b) she faces her own threats of assassination, and c) and this is my elaboration of Pocochina’s point - that she has arguably come to represent for millions of moderate- to low-income Americans (mostly white, but not exclusively) the underdog candidate fighting for them. Just because this vision of her is routinely derided in many pundit circles does not mean that it does not ring true for countless Clinton supporters (if those I read on-line are any indication).

So who’s right, here? Who’s interpretation is valid? Hopefully you realize these are trick questions - obviously all of them are, as they are grounded in experience, identity, and each blogger’s situated knowledge. …

I remember last fall at the Congressional Black Caucus Conference wearing a Clinton pin and an Obama button. I remember my cynical detachment about the two of them, centrists not remotely interested in challenging the status quo other than via their own historic candidacies and the legitimately new perspectives they would bring to the Oval Office: the first serious female contender with her gendered and generational whiteness, modern marriage and professional career working with women and children, and the first multi-racial, cosmopolitan, almost-not-a-Baby-Boomer, black-middle-class Presidential candidate. Yet, as the months have passed since Iowa, I’m getting more and more narrow-minded in my support of Clinton, mainly in response to her unparalleled opposition. My emotionalism is seriously challenging my more “rational” preferences for her policy positions, campaign platform and professional experience.

…

What I think has been the real issue in this campaign - in the politics waged from both sides that have employed or capitalized on systemic sexism and racism - is that both campaign[s] have condescended to the other. …

All of this is getting to my long-drawn-out conclusion: that for most of us this primary has ceased to be about the two candidates, and all about ourselves - in all our complicated beauty. Which of our multiple identities is elevated consciously or otherwise in feeling drawn to the candidates, what our biases or privileges really are, what our core personal networks really look like, what we feel we’re owed by society personally or collectively, and what we’re projecting onto these two figureheads who are similar triangulating centrists - one with most of her dirty laundry exposed, and the other with his soon to come out to dry.

I feel like I’ve lost a lot of virtual allies in this primary (hopefully temporarily), but gained a plethora of new ones. At my old blog I wrote I how I tended to identify with middle- and moderate-income white ethnics and women and men of color I meet because our life experiences are often quite similar. Who I have met in numbers on-line via supporting Clinton are many new young outspoken working-class and middle-class Asian-American and white ethnic feminists. I have purged many middle-class and upper-middle-class mostly white male and female bloggers who I felt marginally about to begin with. Good riddance. They don’t speak for me. I’m not sure who does these days…

And from the Online Etymology Dictionary, tribe:

from O.Fr. tribu, from L. tribus “one of the three political/ethnic divisions of the original Roman state” (Tites, Ramnes, and Luceres, corresponding, perhaps, to the Latins, Sabines, and Etruscans), later, one of the 30 political divisions instituted by Servius Tullius (increased to 35 in 241 B.C.E.), perhaps from tri- “three” + *bhu-, root of the verb be.

We are dividing ever more strongly into our tribes in this country. It’s dangerous.

Public defenders’ office to begin refusing cases

The state’s chief public defender is asking judges to order the state Finance and Administration Cabinet to pay for private lawyers for poor criminal defendants because his agency can no longer afford to represent them.

In a letter to judges released Wednesday, public advocate Ernie Lewis warned that public defenders will begin refusing certain types of cases starting July 1 as a result of the $2.3 million budget cut approved this spring by the General Assembly.

Lewis said the Department of Public Advocacy cannot afford to fill about 40 vacancies. With caseloads already at unethically high levels, Lewis said, public defenders cannot take on additional cases.

“The dilemma that now exists is that the Commonwealth of Kentucky is obligated to provide counsel to poor people charged with crimes, but the legislature has failed to fund that obligation,” Lewis wrote. “DPA will assert that the solution to this is for courts to enter orders requiring the Commonwealth to pay for private counsel.”

The service cuts, and the request for the state to foot the bill for private lawyers, could lead to a constitutional showdown. And, as Lewis acknowledges in the letter, it could lead to sanctions for Lewis personally.

Linda Blackford, writing in the Lexington Herald-Leader:

It’s hard to imagine now, says Charlie Peters, but back in 1960, the Catholicism of John F. Kennedy was every bit as big a problem for Appalachian voters as Barack Obama’s race appears to be today.

When Peters, Kennedy’s Kanawha County campaign chairman, first took him around Charleston, W.Va, at least 20 percent of the people refused to shake his hand. So Kennedy spent 16 of the 30 days before the primary showing West Virginians “he wasn’t wearing the Pope’s clothes,” Peters said.

The campaign brought in Franklin Delano Roosevelt Jr., distributed 40,000 copies of a Reader’s Digest story about Kennedy’s heroism in World War II, and spread around plenty of money. Kennedy won the primary, which helped propel him to the nomination.

The Obama campaign chose a different route – a smattering of TV commercials and fliers about his Christian faith, but just one visit by the candidate to Kentucky and West Virginia this year. There was little direct conversation about voters’ misconceptions of his religion, or about concerns related to divisive remarks by his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

He lost to Hillary Clinton in both states by more than 30 points.

The question now is whether Obama, as the expected nominee, will continue writing off Appalachia or return and try to make his case to white, rural voters.

“I worry about them gliding past a problem like that,” said Peters, who went on to found the Washington Monthly magazine and is now an Obama supporter. “There are people like this all over the country, and if you don’t reach out, they would have stayed in West Virginia thinking Jack would have done what the Pope said, just like now they’ll think Obama will do what Rev. Wright says. It calls for dramatic action.”

Read the whole thing. It’s an excellent piece that asks the question do you fight racism or call the people racist and write them off? I know my answer to that question.

Reading this article tempts me to conclude that, as a culture, we may have learned the wrong lesson from JFK’s run for the presidency. Everybody focused on his superior television presence, so that now our candidates spend obscene millions on saturation television advertising, a shameful percentage of which is negative. Not to mention debates that are more about theater than policy.

Bad media coverage and lack of money has forced Hillary Clinton to run a campaign more like Kennedy ran in West Virginia, based on grass roots, face-to-face politics. This strategy, which the Clintons have always liked, has been more successful for her than the powers that be like to admit.

Huckabee, like him or not, did some of the same thing and was rewarded with some success with very little money. The difference being, I’d hazard, that Huckabee was never a candidate who was going to have broad appeal.

What that proves, it seems to me, is that people are ready to by-pass television. They want to see and hear the candidates direct.

__________

Good news: Missouri’s voter ID law failed.

__________

Update: Then there’s this from The Daily Yonder: Julie Ardery’s City Voters & the Unfairer Sex

Uncomfortable as it may make us all, it’s time to own up to what the primary election results are bearing out.

City people are misogynistic. It’s not clear whether urbanites fear the idea of female leadership or (like T.S. Eliot, who was from St. Louis, by the way) they just don’t like the way women smell.

Read the rest.